Hill to move Iraq supplemental quickly, but with 'tough questions'

Congressional leaders laid out an ambitious timetable Wednesday for completing work on the administration's $87 billion fiscal 2004 supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, despite Democratic protests about the reconstruction costs and the lack of GOP support for domestic priorities.

"We have a duty to examine closely the president's request for additional funding for the current operations in Iraq," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., adding that the request would go through "regular order"-including Appropriations Committee hearings and a markup, followed by floor consideration.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the chamber's third-ranking Republican, said the measure could be completed shortly after the Senate's Oct. 3-14 recess. He added the measure most likely would go to the president's desk as a freestanding bill rather than being wrapped into an end-of-session omnibus spending measure.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said he would hold hearings Monday and Wednesday, with a markup the following week. Other Senate committees are expected to hold hearings, including Foreign Relations and Armed Services. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., said he would move the measure "quickly and cleanly" but that "we will be asking some tough questions of the administration."

A spokesman said the Foreign Operations Subcommittee would hold a hearing Wednesday or Thursday of next week, at which L. Paul Bremer, head of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority, would testify. A markup has not yet been scheduled.

The $87 billion measure, formally submitted late Wednesday, would be split into two primary pieces-$65.6 billion for military and intelligence activities, and $21.4 billion for reconstruction undertaken by the Coalition Provisional Authority and State Department, which would receive $140 million.

Of the $65.6 billion, $2.6 billion is for U.S. domestic overflights by Air Force reserves, Air National Guard and active Air Force and $1.4 billion would support cooperating nations such as Pakistan and Jordan. Another $73 million would be used for Afghan drug interdiction activities.

About $2 billion would go toward the Iraqi Freedom Fund, which has transfer authority to provide money for different accounts supporting operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Within the request is funding to support two Army National Guard brigades and one Marine Expeditionary Force, to be deployed only if multinational divisions are not available or if circumstances dictate the presence of U.S. forces, according to supplemental documents.

The request asks for the flexibility to transfer up to $5 billion between Defense Department accounts, a provision lawmakers will be hesitant to approve.

The request would also provide up to $250 in per diem payments to family members for visits to injured military personnel, including "proper civilian attire" for family members to wear during hospital visits. It would also increase Hardship Duty Pay for personnel from $300 to $600 per month, among other pay increases.

More than $344 million would be provided for base camp housing "to improve the housing and morale of deployed forces." Another $435.6 million would go towards chemical weapons defense programs, and the request would provide $600 million to compensate for increased fuel costs.

Of the $21.4 billion portion, $20.3 billion is for Iraq and $1.1 billion for Afghanistan. The $140 million State Department portion would provide $50 million to finance $25 million rewards offered for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Another $100 million would be for "unforeseen needs and requirements."

The request would also allow up to $200 million in the fiscal 2004 Foreign Operations bill be used for debt reduction in Pakistan, and exempt Pakistan from limits on assistance. Also, the measure would allow flexibility to use up to $200 million for use where needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Santorum and Stevens each reiterated the administration's call to keep the military and reconstruction pieces together rather than keep them separate, as some Democrats are calling for.

Stevens said he had considered separating the measure into military and reconstruction pieces but had rejected that option.

"The two pieces are inextricably intertwined," Santorum said. "It's not acceptable to split them apart."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten briefed Republican senators in advance of the formal transmittal Wednesday evening. Santorum told reporters that the briefing focused on the reconstruction portion, and that some senators had concerns. But he said there was no dissent over the price tag.

Some fiscal conservatives, such as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., are advocating a multinational loan guarantee program to pay for Iraq's reconstruction. But Stevens threw cold water on that idea, arguing there were questions about how the loans would be paid back.

Also House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., said some nations who opposed the war would be hesitant to contribute.

"It would be very hard to get multinational help from some countries who just a few months ago we told to go stick it in their ear," Obey said.

On the House side, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who heads the conservative Republican Study Committee, said some members want to focus on loans to be repaid out of future oil revenues, rather than straight appropriations.

"But everybody agrees we need the money for the troops," Myrick said. Democrats and Republicans sharpened their legislative-and political-strategies for considering the $87 billion package.

Obey distributed charts showing that per capita spending in Iraq would dwarf spending in the United States. Spending on electricity infrastructure would amount to $255 per person, as opposed to 71 cents in the United States. He also cited massive deficits.

"I don't intend to support this package without trying to see that at least some of it is paid for," Obey said.

Administration officials Wednesday dismissed criticism that spending per capita on infrastructure for Iraq exceeds that in the United States, arguing that Bush's budget meets domestic needs.

They said the spending on Iraq is in fact for the United States as well, since it is used to combat the war on terrorism and because reconstructing Iraq will help bring U.S. troops home from the country.

The administration also is not seeking offsets for the funds, the officials said. They said administration officials continue to believe that no more requests for Iraq and Afghanistan will be needed for fiscal 2004. The administration also offered arguments Wednesday for the spending flexibility it is seeking. The request includes $5 billion within the Defense Department portion of the proposal that can be used for "all appropriations," according to a member of a group of senior administration officials who briefed reporters by phone Wednesday.

"It's just general transfer authority to give us some flexibility-if at the end of the year, we haven't guessed each appropriation correct," the official said.

"We recognize and we hope the Congress recognizes that we'll need some flexibility to respond to events as they unfold on the ground," one of the officials said.

The $87 billion in spending also assumes that the United States does not have to increase its own force levels in Iraq. One official indicated that if there was a "significant change" in Iraq and forces had to be "greatly increased," the administration might have to come back for more money.

"That's not what we're anticipating," another official quickly added.

Bush is expecting Congress to pass the bill without add-ons, according to one official, who said he had "a high degree of confidence" lawmakers want to approve a clean bill quickly.

However, asked if Bush was prepared to insist on a clean bill, the official responded: "We're going to let Congress have a look at it before we start insisting on more things."

Keith Koffler and Lisa Caruso contributed to this report.